#disagree unless it was post crisis (i like being contrary)

[dcconfessions]

Tim Drake, Connor Hawke, Cass Cain and Stephanie Brown was a really fun team up, wish they had more stuff together

.

[marymosley]

When “Awfully Close” Is Just Awful: Nadler Raises Invalid Bribery Theory In Call For Barr Investigation

Fifty years ago, Ford Motor Company started production on the Pinto, a car that was billed as the be-all, end-all for the automotive industry. The only problem was that the car seemed to burst into flames if it hit a mid- to large-sized squirrel. The Pinto’s combustibility did not stop its advocates from pushing its use until it finally was pulled from the roads.

     The Pinto came to mind this week with the reappearance of a poorly conceived product from the legal world: the Trump bribery theory. Various legal experts have insisted President Trump could be prosecuted or impeached under bribery laws, including for his dealings with Ukraine. I have written repeatedly that this theory was discredited by controlling case law, and I testified against its use as an article in the House impeachment hearing last year.  As Ralph Nader once said about the Chevrolet Corvair, this theory is “unsafe at any speed” on Capitol Hill. The decision to pull out this discredited theory of bribery is just the latest example of choosing combustibility over credibility in legal analysis.  The difference is that when unstable automotive products are exposed, they are taken off the road.  Unstable legal products just keep rolling along.

      Despite the support of the three other witnesses at the hearing, the House Judiciary Committee wisely declined to impeach on this facially invalid theory. Some of us thought that the bribery theory was discarded to the junkyard of bad ideas. Yet, late this week, it was back with a vengeance: After hearing the testimony of former U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman, House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) declared his committee will investigate whether Attorney General William Barr is guilty of bribery, for offering to move Berman from his post in New York to the Department of Justice’s Civil Division.

      The reappearance of the theory followed the implosion of an alternative criminal theory.

      Just a week ago, Barr was being accused of criminal obstruction in seeking to can Berman as the U.S. Attorney in New York’s Southern District, in order to influence investigations affecting Trump friends ranging from Rudy Giuliani to the late Jeffrey Epstein. It did not matter that these investigations have been aggressively pursued under Barr’s tenure.

     The problem is that, when Berman released his written statement to Congress, he did not allege this change was an effort to hamper any investigation. (Notably, on a committee known for leaking information from closed hearing, no such allegation was leaked and no member said that it was made). Instead, Berman said he told Barr that he not want to leave the Southern District of New York because he wanted to see “important investigations … through to completion” and “to help lead the Office through the COVID crisis and get the Office back to normal functioning.”

      Berman said Barr wanted to shift Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Jay Clayton into the Southern District position to accommodate Clayton’s desire to move back to New York. As Barr stated, he offered other positions to Berman that would have been effective promotions.

      There still is no evidence of any effort to hamper Southern District investigations. To the contrary, the Epstein investigation has continued full bore with the extraordinary arrest of Epstein’s close associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Barr has pushed for Britain’s Prince Andrew to give evidence in that case. Barr’s DOJ has pushed to incarcerate Trump’s close friend, Roger Stone, and Barr reportedly opposed Trump’s decision to give presidential clemency to Stonein the form of a commutation. And Barr specifically asked the DOJ’s inspector general to monitor the Southern District office to prevent any interference in its investigations.

      That is when the bribery theory came sputtering back on to the road. Nader announced: “We don’t know yet if the attorney general’s conduct is criminal, but that kind of quid pro quo is awfully close to bribery.” It is not awfully close. Just awful.

      The suggestion is so wildly absurd that it defies belief — unless you have been following the legal analysis of the last three years. A leading proponent has been former prosecutor and Washington Post columnist Randall D. Eliason, who insisted that “allegations of a wrongful quid pro quo are really just another way of saying that there was a bribe … it’s bribery if a quid pro quo is sought with corrupt intent, if the president is not pursuing legitimate U.S. policy but instead is wrongfully demanding actions by Ukraine that would benefit him personally.” Eliason further endorsed the House report and assured that “The legal and factual analysis of bribery and honest services fraud in the House report is exactly right” and “outlines compelling evidence of federal criminal violations.”

      The theory was never “exactly” or even remotely right, as evidenced by the decision not to use it as a basis for impeachment. And yet, it’s back.

      In my testimony, I went into great historical and legal detail to explain why this theory was never credible.  While it was gleefully presented by papers like the Washington Post, it ignored case law that rejected precisely this type of limitless definition of the offense.  As I told the House Judiciary Committee, the Supreme Court has repeatedly narrowed the scope of the statutory definition of bribery, including distinctions with direct relevance to the current controversy in cases like McDonnell v. United States, where the Court overturned the conviction of former Virginia governor Robert McDonnell. Chief Justice John Roberts eviscerated what he called the “boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.” The Court explained the such “boundless interpretations” are inimical to constitutional rights because they deny citizens the notice of what acts are presumptively criminal: “[U]nder the Government’s interpretation, the term ‘official act’ is not defined ‘with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited,’ or ‘in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.’”  That is precisely what is being threatened if offering an alternative job to a subordinate in government would constituted bribery.

      I will be repeated the litany of cases the refuted this theory but it did not matter then and it does not matter now to those who believe that the criminal code is endless flexible to meet political agenda.

      It doesn’t even matter that the Supreme Court reaffirmed prior rejections of such broad interpretations in a recent unanimous ruling written by Justice Elena Kagan. In Kelly v. United States, the Supreme Court threw out the convictions in the “Bridgegate” case involving the controversial closing of lanes on the George Washington Bridge to create traffic problems for the mayor of Fort Lee, N.J., who refused to endorse then-Gov. Chris Christie.

      Yet, Nadler is suggesting that by simply offering Berman alternative positions, Barr was offering a criminal bribe. Keep in mind that Barr’s offer also included the promise to fire Berman if he refused to vacate the position. Barr did not have to bribe Berman to remove him. Barr wanted Berman to remain in the administration but, in the end, the only certainty was that Berman would not be in his current position. Again, imagine if such a choice could be deemed criminal bribery because an offer of an alternative job can be construed as a quid pro quo. That is what the Court meant by the “boundless interpretation” of bribery.

      I have disagreed with Clayton’s nomination to the Southern District, and I also disagreed with the suggested substitution of an acting U.S. Attorney rather than the obviously qualified choice of Audrey Strauss from within the SDNY. However, none of that suggests a crime, let alone bribery. While Berman insisted he could have litigated his removal, he would have lost. While it is true that he was appointed by a court, he — like all U.S. Attorneys — serves at the pleasure of the president. Barr gave him various options, but remaining in his position was not one of those — which is why Barr would say confidently that Berman was stepping down … one way or the other.

      That is why the latest road-test of the bribery theory is a Pinto-like hazard given even the smallest collision with actual law.

  When “Awfully Close” Is Just Awful: Nadler Raises Invalid Bribery Theory In Call For Barr Investigation published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

[datingadviceonreddit]

Here are some red flags and tips to spotting them:They insist you message them often and get passive-aggressive, or openly aggressive when you take a day to yourself. Be very cautious. This is a form of clinginess and has a good chance of worsening to verbal abuse or even physical because you ignored them even for a moment. It also shows an unhealthy level of insecurity and means they NEED you to a certain degree, meaning this relationship may soon get tiring.Solutions: Have a clear conversation about boundaries and expectations. Offer a compromise in which you can choose not to contact them for a maybe a day just to relax, and assure them it means nothing, you just need your space to work on homework, your job, etc. If they cannot accept this request, end it. They need to understand you have a right to space. Threat level: MediumThey have to always be "right" even when it doesn't matter. Let's say they ask about your favorite film and you say you love Batman Begins. They happen to think it is a bad film and instead of respectfully disagreeing or simply commenting, "Oh that movie is not for me." They start an enormous fight in which they belittle you for enjoying the film and won't stop arguing and criticizing you until you relent and agree their choice is better. What accentuates this being a red flag, is how minor the topic, in particular, may be and how little it affects your ability to get along as people. Solutions: Discuss the possibility of more passive methods of communicating. Ask them why they feel you can't enjoy different things. Ask them if it's possible for two people to be right in different ways. If this doesn't make them stop and think, just politely end it. You're in for a world of hurt, long term. This kind of person gets off on being right and will pick on every little thing you love just to feel superior. Believe me, it is not worth it. Threat Level: HighThey frequently make negative posts on social media about how their friends are ignoring them or how they're learning who their "real friends are". They're both a drama seeker, and a bad communicator. Rather than privately contacting the people upsetting them, this kind of person thinks it's appropriate to post their issues all over social media and not so subtly shame people. Not only that but they're needy and the things they're upset over are childish and minor. If they are so upset that people are not messaging them, they could easily contact their friends first. They're being petty and expect attention without being mature enough to communicate that they want it. Solutions: I'm afraid there are very few solutions to this one. They already think others are in the wrong for minor things and you could easily be the next person they shame on Facebook. You can either decide to go along for the ride and watch them have many fights with their friends and family as time passes, or call it off. Threat level: HighThey refuse to communicate at all during an argument, they simply shut down. This may not seem so bad at first. Your S.O. simply does not reply or participate when you get upset, and either lets you wear yourself out without listening, or manipulates you into dropping the issue altogether. I can't tell you how many partners I've had that would simply say nothing and ignore me when I'm having a crisis. Arguments suck but they're very important and should never be taken lightly or ignored. They're a clear sign that someone wants something out of this relationship that they're not getting. Sometimes it may be just a little more love, but if the other is not listening, that need will not be fulfilled. People weasel out or avoid having out an argument in many many ways. Some will just burst into tears, making you feel like a monster for continuing to argue, and inevitably causing you to guiltily give up. Some will just sit there silently while you panic, not commenting on your distressed thoughts, only occasionally responding with just a general unhappiness that you are fighting, without caring for what you have to say. Either way, this is so so important. The first fight you have a couple will tell you so much about the relationship, so pay attention. This is how every fight is likely to go from this point on. If they aren't communicating at all, this is a big problem. Expect your inevitable unhappiness towards certain aspects of the relationship to be continually ignored for years to come. Solutions: So you've had a fight early on and their S.O. wouldn't listen and communicate to you about the problem. You need to be straight forward and to the point. Without picking another fight, let them know it's not acceptable for them to ignore you over serious matters. Allow that some arguments are silly and in hindsight might not be worth having. But some could make a huge difference in making it work or being incompatible. Ask that you see a change and if you don't in a few weeks, or months if you choose to wait that long, walk. You've entered a negative pattern that will repeat itself and nausium and never get better. Threat Level: highYou have dramatically different opinions about sex. Listen, it sounds silly, I know. But some people really need certain things in the bedroom that some partners will not give. If you'd rather not have an intimate experience with someone only to learn you're incompatible, consider a discussion in which you learn what each of you thinks is preferred or not preferred, in an intimate situation. It's also important to learn if one of you intends to wait until marriage and the other not. Or you might want to know if this person can be comfortable with your body or body type. Especially, this is a good time to get a conversation about exclusivity out of the way; if one of you is strictly monogamous in all forms and the other is more open-minded to non-monogamy, it's important that you learn that early on. People have passionate feelings about what is right and what is wrong, what is romantic and what is gross, in the bedroom. If you happen to have seriously different opinions, this could cause you so much pain in the long run. So many arguments over what one of you enjoys that the other one does not, or causing one partner to feel that their needs are never met. Contrary to popular belief, sex is a 100% valid reason to break up. Solutions: When you are sure it is the right time, have a conversation about sexual preferences. If you can compromise on your preferences a little, good. If they have totally different preferences, you might have to break up, unless you're really open to experimentation. If they absolutely refuse to have this conversation, dump them right then and there. They are too immature. Threat Level: HighThey admit to a history of seriously toxic behaviors in their past relationships. Let's say you're a highly monogamous person and on your first or second date with someone, you learn that they have cheated on their past partner. Do not brush this under the rug. Whatever their negative past is, from cheating to verbal or physical abuse, walk away. There is a good chance they will repeat this behavior and you will be their next victim. I'd love to say that some people learn, and some really do. But ask yourself if it's worth the risk. Some lessons, a person should already know. Empathy should be ingrained. Solutions: There aren't any real solutions here. You can either accept that you'll probably get hurt similarly, or you can break up. Threat Level: HighThey're a convicted criminal. This one might be obvious, but if they're a convicted criminal, that's probably bad news. They could be dangerous, or drag you into their illegal activity. This being said if you have a similar history of crimes, you might understand them better. However, if you're a straight-edge person, you'd be best avoiding dangerous criminals. Solutions: Run. Threat Level: HighThere's are the few I could think of off the top of my head! feel free to add more in the comments. via /r/dating_advice

[victoryzen]

History Channel vs. the Daily Beast: Amelia Earhart's Final Days

Sacramento Journalist Cary Rodda (SN&R), a facebook friend whose music articles I've enjoyed for years, brought a Clive Irving (Daily Beast) article to my attention after I posted a link to an excellent documentary I’d just seen on the History Channel: Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence

http://www.history.com/specials/amelia-earhart-the-lost-evidence

Since Mr. Rodda’s comment, this additional article by Michael Greshko has been published (7/11/17): http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/amelia-earhart-lost-photograph-discredited-spd/

The History Channel has stated that they will examine the evidences and be transparent in their findings.

Meanwhile, I’ve written a long response to Irving’s Daily Beast article that I wish to share here.

If the photograph is proven to have been published in a Japanese travelogue two years prior to Earhart’s crisis and disappearance, then indeed I’ve been proven wrong on a point I felt quite certain of. Nonetheless, I’ve yet to examine the contrary evidence for myself, and the Nat Geo article does support a competing theorist (King, co-funded by Nat Geo). Given what we know about what money can buy, I’m going to spend some time on this. I’d like to see an original copy of the 1935 travelogue for one thing. It’s too easy to photoshop these days and digital editors work cheap.

See another link/s to current articles on the subject below, along w/ some of my questions.

My essay in response to Clive Irving’s July 9, 2017 article in the Daily Beast:

This is an interesting article, and worth considering. However, I disagree w/ Aoki’s interpretation of Japanese-American-Chinese relations, and there are several unclear points (eg, which nation “allowed” the US ship to travel up the Yangtze R. to rescue people from the US Embassy? China, or Japan? Sounds like China; if so, that point doesn’t support Aoki’s claim that relations between the US & Japan were great, just great, everything is fine; obviously Roosevelt can only downplay so many events that may incite a war before s/he’s just got to face the facts.

Also, Pearl Harbor DID happen, and FOIA docs show (I believe) that US intel knew about the attack at least 2 hours prior- the US (or some factions of US- not like we can ever agree on anything) was eager to get into WWII (I think Ken Burns’ docs cover this) and sacrificed PH in order to have a strong position to enter the war against the Axis of Evil (can any reasonable person deny that nomenclature based on even what we could then observe of the Third Reich’s actions?)

Aoki has also interviewed a telegraphist, Lt. Kouzu, on the Koshu Maru, for her 1982 japanese-language book, who claimed no Americans were picked up, and the ships logs mention nothing of it. I do not speak or read Japanese, but in 1982, it’s likely that WWII participants were still living, and unlikely therefore that veterans or servicemen would speak openly about events that would have most likely been sensitive to Japanese national security- a reasonable person cannot deny that such an event would be headline news world-wide, and a triumph to the US/British (closely allied then, even more so then now, largely because of family- my own grandfather’s grandparents were English immigrants).

Psychologically, it was an unhappy ending to Earhart’s adventures for her & Noonan to “disappear”. For all we know, their return may have been a bargaining chip at some point for the Japanese. The Japanese were up against the USSR and needed every edge they could get in terms of international clout long before & regardless of WWII. They are a geographically small island nation, culturally isolated until what, 60 years before WWII? That’s not a long history of international relations, as things go. Their disadvantages far, far outweighed their advantages, strategically speaking.

Another point: Irving’s article states that

Even though the technology used in the Electra may not have been particularly advanced, any foreign govt knows it’s a good idea to check it out anyway; it may have carried messages or similar sensitive intel; it may not have been the tech they were mainly interested in, but it would’ve been neglectful for them to simply ignore or leave the plane (& crew) be after it “crash landed” in their territory.

The four meteorologists who were taken to Greenwich Island via the Koshu Maru were delivered there on July 3, 1937. Pretty sure the documentary’s theory and evidence shows they landed but were not immediately picked up by the Koshu Maru. I believe locals interacted with them initially until the Japanese were alerted & only then did the Koshu Maru arrive. I could be incorrect, but to the KM, that distance would be reasonable to travel in the time allotted.

The Clive Irving article addresses theories of Earhart’s disaster plans that are NOT based on the expertise of pilots who understand that as part of their training and trip planning, disaster plans are decided upon that follow certain protocols that may or may not actually be used in the event of an actual disaster, such as the captain who landed the passenger jet in the Hudson in January 2009. Earhart, if indeed she was “not an intuitive pilot like Lindbergh”, would’ve stuck to her pre-planned strategy, not necessarily the most logical action in the eyes of non-pilot laypersons with hindsight on their side.

Lindbergh was celebrated in Tokyo in 1931 (6 yrs prior) after being rescued by a presumably non-military Japanese boat. Who’s to say the same would not have been true for Earhart and Noonan? Could the outcome have been different if she’d had to emergency-land six years prior and if she was male? Her feisty American spirit doubtless drew criticism from a “traditionalist” type of male in the US because she didn’t follow cultural expectations of female dress & behavior; the US hadn’t entered WWII so Rosie the Riveter (aka my Grandma Corkey Bowns who soldered windshield wipers on Eisenhower’s Air Force One) had yet to be called to serve in traditional male roles. Earhart would certainly have been considered a threat to cultural stability in pre-WWII Japan.

Irving first addresses the photographic evidences of the documentary- mainly a photo from Jaluit Atoll in the Marshall Islands, that the documentary has examined by experts including a facial-recognition expert. At first, when viewing the docu, I expected (frankly) shoddy and inexact visual comparisons. I was surprised to see several photos comparing both Earhart and Noonan that I would consider strong visual evidence. As an art & family historian with some training in photography, film, digital imaging, and aged photo repair, I am no expert, but few would deny that I have a good eye for such detail. What struck me most was Earhart’s distinctive posture. The docu didn’t make mention of it, opting for a proportional comparison instead, but I found the body language and posture of the figures in the photo most convincing. If I had to make the call, I would say there’s a 90+% probability that the figure in the photo is Earhart. Add that to the circumstantial evidence and Noonan’s figure, it’s 99% (unless proven wrong, this is accurate).

So, all due respect to Aoki’s book’s theories and claims, I do not find the Daily Beast article to hold convincing data that disproves anything in the documentary. In fact, it may even lend credence to the conclusions presented in Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence. Our greatest interest should be finding the truth, of course, and it is good to explore and compare ideas. However, we know that governments cover up facts in order to protect their own interests; the Japanese and US governments are no exception. The amount of info the US Navy has redacted from records (presumably released by FOIA- the Freedom of Information Act) relating to Earhart alone should give us pause.

Articles of additional interest: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/search-still-amelia-earhart-80-years-after-she-disappeared-n778291 Questions: Where did her 4th cousin W. Earhart get his info from, suppositions? Family legend? His own conclusions? Who is the Japanese military blogger Koto Yamano? Could s/he be former military/intelligence? Is this scan & data accurate and true? Have the US National Archives indeed been "purged" of references to Earhart? Have FOIA requests been made? Does the US Navy or CIA have documents relevant to Earhart's life and possible death, or did they, that can be accessed legally? Or does the US Treasury have any info relating to her?